Posted on 09/13/2008 2:03:10 PM PDT by xzins
Iraq: Detainee death cases headed to trial
Two soldiers await courts-martial for alleged roles in murder plot
Two junior-ranking soldiers will face courts-martial for their role in an alleged conspiracy to murder four Iraqi detainees in April 2007, the 7th U.S. Army Joint Multinational Training Command announced late Friday.
Charges of conspiracy to commit premeditated murder against Spc. Belmor Ramos, 23, and Spc. Steven Ribordy, 25, were referred to general courts-martial on Monday by Brig. Gen. David R. Hogg, JMTC commander. Both soldiers were members of 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment at the time of the incident. The unit has since reflagged and is now part of the 172nd Infantry Brigade.
Ramos’ court-martial is scheduled to start at 10 a.m. on Thursday at Rose Barracks, Vilseck, Germany, according to an Army statement. Ribordy’s court-martial has not yet been scheduled.
Ramos and Ribordy both waived their right to an Article 32 hearing, which is similar to a grand jury hearing. Both soldiers were brokering plea deals as the Article 32 for two other soldiers kicked off in August.
The other soldiers, Sgt. Jess Cunningham, 27, and Sgt. Charles Quigley, 28, also have been charged with conspiracy to commit premeditated murder in the incident. Their Article 32 concluded Aug. 28.
"Those cases have not been referred to trial and are pending the recommendation of the presiding investigating officer," according to an Army statement.
Testimony given by various witnesses during the Article 32 indicated that none of the four soldiers so far charged in the case actually killed Iraqi detainees, but were nearby when three noncommissioned officers, including a company first sergeant, a platoon sergeant and a senior medic, allegedly shot four unarmed detainees near a canal in southwest Baghdad.
More incompetent representation. You don't waive a 32 when you're charged with murder and everyone acknowledges that your crime was simply being there.
Out of control investigators and lawyers
I wish their superiors would whisper to them never take a plea deal.
The Army is going after the most junior alleged witnesses first to get testimony against superiors. And like the Fallujah case, the prosecution's case will be entirely built on witness testimony, produced under coercive circumstances.
Wonder how the negotiations are going on with the Iraq-US Security agreement? Once that's signed, maybe these prosecutions will stop. Until then, it feels like we're on a mission to prove that we will eat our own.
I agree with you and Red. It sounds like their lawyers might be in the tank for plea bargains for them to testify against their superiors.
I haven’t heard about progress. Is it a SOFA negotiation?
U.S. troop immunity main hurdle in security pact: Iraq, Reuters, September 10, 2008.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Legal protection for U.S. troops in Iraq is the most difficult issue still to be settled in U.S.-Iraqi talks on a new security pact, a senior Iraqi official said on Wednesday.
Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih told Reuters in an interview that Baghdad was awaiting a response from the United States on a number of questions and proposals Iraq had put forward regarding immunity and some other outstanding issues.
"(Immunity) is probably the most contentious issue," Salih said. "There is a history to it. It is very sensitive."
There have been a number of high-profile incidents involving American soldiers killing or abusing Iraqis since the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003.
Iraqis were horrified by photos in 2004 of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison.
In 2005, U.S. Marines were accused of killing 24 civilians in Haditha, west of Baghdad. Most Marines charged in a U.S. military court have had their cases dismissed or been acquitted.
Iraqi officials say such incidents have colored bilateral talks aimed at striking a deal to govern the U.S. troop presence here after a U.N. mandate expires at the year's end.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has vowed that no foreigners will receive "absolute" immunity, and said last month that "the sanctity of Iraqi blood must be respected."
There's more at the link.
I don’t know of a SOFA with any other nation that allows US soldiers to be prosecuted by the foreign government UNLESS the US Government agrees to it.
When this government is stable, we should pull back to Kuwait. We should not agree to giving prosecutorial rights against our soldiers to any nation.
They’d have a field day with that.
One has to remember giving up immunity to our troops can be a big mistake, not only giving up “rules of engagement” but someone accusing them of using God’s name in vain, accusing them of rape, robbery, running a red light and on and on. Some of these people would love to get their hands on some Americans. Its bad enough be stuck in a Mexican jail much less a Arab jail.
Especially for an American contractor or serviceman stuck in an Arab jail. It’d be hell on earth.
Iraqi translator tells US soldier's hearing of gruesome murder
CAMP SPEICHER, Iraq (AFP) — An Iraqi translator told a US soldier's pre-trial hearing on Sunday about the gruesome murder of a detainee who was shot and later had his face disfigured by an incendiary grenade.
The hearing of Staff Sergeant Hal Warner entered its second day with testimony from the translator who testified about the brutal killing of Iraqi detainee Ali Mansur Mohammed in May.
Warner has been charged, along with First Lieutenant Michael Behenna, with premeditated murder, as well as assault, making a false official statement and obstruction of justice.
The hearing is being held at this military base near Tikrit, the hometown of executed dictator Saddam Hussein. Behenna's pre-trial hearing is scheduled for September 20.
The translator, whose name was not revealed for security reasons, told the hearing that Mohammed was first shot and later had his face disfigured by a thermite grenade.
The murder was allegedly committed on May 16 under a bridge in the northern oil refinery town of Baiji, after the two soldiers left their base with Mohammed to set him free at a checkpoint.
"Lieutenant Behenna started talking with Ali Mansur and Sergeant Warner followed them," the witness said.
"Behenna and Warner started taking off Ali Mansur's clothes with their knives. They then cut his handcuffs."
Behenna ordered the detainee to sit, the translator said.
"He (Behenna) asked him a question. You have to tell me what you know," the witness who had translated Behenna's question to the detainee told the hearing.
"Then Behenna pulled the trigger. Warner was further down from the scene. He (Behenna) shot him once, then twice and we could hear Ali Mansur's last voice," the witness said, testifying in English.
He said after the shooting, Warner "took the grenade from his pocket, pulled the safety ring, walked around and put the grenade under Ali Mansur's head."
"Then they hid his clothes and Behenna and Warner went back."
On Saturday, two US soldiers from the same battalion had also testified against Warner.
Corporal Cody Atkinson said that Behenna and Warner, armed with a grenade, took Mohammed out of the vehicle and under the bridge.
Mohammed was initially believed to have been freed along with another detainee at a checkpoint, but he was allegedly held longer in captivity and his naked and badly burnt body was found the next day under the bridge.
The charges state that Warner and Behenna shot Mohammed and set his body on fire by using a thermite grenade which burns fiercely.
"We all thought that we were going to jail for this. Sergeant Warner told us to write that Ali Mansur had been released," Atkinson told the hearing on Saturday.
When Atkinson was asked whether Warner told him Behenna killed Mohammed, he answered "Yes."
Another soldier, Sergeant Milton Sanchez, testified that Behenna told him Mohammed was a "bad guy."
"I know he (Behenna) was mad. He did not think that we should release him. He thought we were wrong to drop this detainee," Sanchez said.
While Warner sat silently throughout the entire session on Saturday, a few metres (yards) away Behenna, 25, took notes and later quietly slipped out of the room afterwards, an AFP correspondent reported.
The US military in Iraq has been rocked by a series of scandals.
The most serious charges of unlawful killings came when a group of marines was accused of murdering 24 Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha in November 2005 after a roadside bomb killed a comrade.
Eight marines were charged the following year, but most were either acquitted or had the charges withdrawn before court martial.
This is the first I’ve heard, although I assumed it, that Mohammed was a dangerous insurgent. We know this unit had the highest number of soldiers killed during that deployment. The Lt decided the guy was so bad, so dangerous, that he wasn’t going to let him go.
I’d like to hear the soldiers testify if the Lt was right about Mohammed being that dangerous. I want to know how dangerous he was.
What would Dirty Harry do if a known serial murderer were being let loose on the streets?’
Would Dirty Harry be right?
Honestly, it depends on how bad the guy really was. There is a point at which evil becomes so evil that it must be stopped. Was this that point?
All excellent points and questions, chaplain. I’d never say that our serviceman and woman can do no wrong, but I’ll admit to shading in that direction, and would certainly not second-guess them in a combat situation.
In a case like this, I just have to hope that the jury will be fair and will err on the side of compassion.
It is a matter of a decision made by people who are actually dealing with the problem. If I have a small cut on my little toe and I don’t do anything about it until gangrene takes my leg, what do I say? Should’ve, could’ve, would’ve? But I also want to hear some additional testimony. Not that I care about dead Iraqi’s, I just hate these prosecutions.
If I were Lt Behenna’s attorney, and it was absolutely crystal clear that Behenna was right about an extremely dangerous insurgent who would be sure to kill more Americans, how would I defend Behenna.
First, you’d have to find a way to show how bad the insurgent was.
Next, I don’t know what you could do other than try to get some kind of jury nullification? You couldn’t go after justifiable homicide, could you? You’d have to go over the head of the rules.
The lieutenant has one of the best military lawyers around, Jack Zimmermann (who recently defended LCpl Tatum). I hope there will be press coverage—from some source other than an Iraqi stringer in the French press.
Zimmerman has a great lawyer, I agree. I imagine that the Iraqi government will have their cabinet in attendance.
I don’t think anyone should be murdered. I do think that legal orders should be followed.
I’m torn, though, about those times when orders are simply wrong. In the war of 1812, Captain Nathan Heald was ordered by Gen. William Hull to leave Ft Dearborn even though it meant certain death at the hands of a pro-British Indian confederacy. He was even strongly warned against it by William Wells, who I think was the son-in-law of William Henry Harrison.
His response: “I’ve got to follow orders.”
But, they were grossly stupid orders.
The general who gave the orders, William Hull, went on to lead his army to one of America’s worst defeats ever when victory should have easily been his.
I don't know, x, to send a clear message to the insurgents, it seems to me that killing them if they are captured would be the thing to do. But the politicization of this conflict throws a big monkey wrench on things. If they can prove this person was an insurgent I don't see the problem with killing him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.